MADURAI, Oct 10 - In a strongly worded order, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has raised alarm over the persistent delays in child sexual assault trials across Tamil Nadu. While dismissing a Habeas Corpus Petition filed by Uma Maheshwari - wife of the detenu Sivakumar - the bench came down heavily on authorities for failing to record victim statements within the mandatory period prescribed under the POCSO Act.
Background
Sivakumar, aged 38, was detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “sexual offender.” His wife challenged the detention order, arguing that the detaining authority had wrongly assumed there was a likelihood of bail based on a previous, unrelated case. The petitioner’s counsel insisted that in Sivakumar’s case, the bail plea was still pending and the facts were entirely different.
However, the bench comprising Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice R. Vijayakumar disagreed. They observed that “an exactly similar case can never be found by the detaining authority,” noting that it was reasonable for the authority to rely on comparable cases to infer the possibility of bail.
Court’s Observations
While rejecting the plea, the judges turned their attention to a much larger issue - the chronic delay in trials under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court expressed “deep disturbance” that despite the completion of investigations and filing of the charge sheet, trials had not begun in many cases.
During a previous hearing, the court had directed the Inspector Generals of Police for both the South and Central Zones to submit detailed affidavits on POCSO cases. The resulting data was, as the court put it, “alarming.” In the South Zone alone, 343 cases were pending, and in most of them, the victim’s testimony had not been recorded within 30 days - a clear violation of Section 35 of the Act.
The bench recalled the Supreme Court’s ruling in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, stressing that “the legislature has commanded the State to take steps at many levels so that the child is protected and the trial is appropriately conducted.” The judges remarked that the intent of such laws was being defeated when trials dragged on until the detention period ended.
Quoting from the order, the bench said, “The trial is being protracted and dragged till the detention period comes to an end, which defeats the very purpose of passing the detention order.”
Decision
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Habeas Corpus Petition but used the case to issue a series of directions aimed at systemic reform. It ordered the reissuance of a High Court circular reminding presiding officers of their duty to record child victim statements within 30 days.
The court also instructed the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy to conduct special training for judges handling POCSO cases, ensuring “sensitivity to statutory timelines and prompt cognizance of charge sheets.”
Commending the efforts of senior police officials who compiled the data, the bench noted that their reports would help identify deeper issues in the judicial process, especially “the non-examination of child witnesses within the mandated timeframe.”
With that, the court concluded the matter, directing that all statistical reports be circulated to relevant officials for immediate action.
Case: Uma Maheshwari v. The Principal Secretary to Government & Others
Case Number: H.C.P. (MD) No. 1423 of 2024
Petitioner: Uma Maheshwari (wife of the detenu, Sivakumar)
Respondents: Principal Secretary (Home, Prohibition & Excise), District Collector (Tirunelveli), and other police officials
Date of Judgment: October 10, 2025
